DOCSLIB.ORG

New York State Grievance Prog AR 2006.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
New York State Grievance Prog AR 2006.Pdf STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES INMATE GRIEVANCE PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT 2006 ELIOT SPITZER BRIAN FISCHER GOVERNOR COMMISSIONER INMATE GRIEVANCE PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT - 2006 INMATE GRIEVANCE PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT 2006 I. INTRODUCTION The Inmate Grievance Program (IGP) functions under Departmental Directive #4040 entitled "Inmate Grievance Program" and Departmental Directive #4041 entitled "Inmate Grievance Program Modification Plan" and is established by the statutory mandates of Section 139 NYS Correction Law and N.Y.C.R.R., Title 7, Part 701. The Inmate Grievance Program provides each inmate an orderly, fair, simple and expeditious method ofresolving grievances pursuant to Section 139, NYS Correction Law. This grievance program includes procedures for inmates to resolve allegations of discriminatory treatment in accordance with the State Commission of Correction regulation 9 NYCRR Part 7695. Grievances filed prior to July 7, 1990 were reviewed by the NYS Commission of Correction and responded to by the Commissioner. Correction Law 139 was amended by Chapter 373 of the Laws of 1990 deleting the requirement that the Commission of Correction review individual grievances, yet required the Commission of Correction to review and assess the grievance process on an annual basis. The elimination of the advisory step ensures that the grievance process is more expeditious while at the same time allows the Commission of Correction to provide oversight. On September 28, 1992, the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Associate Attorney General, pursuant to the authority conferred by Title 42, United States Code, Section 1997e and Part 40 of Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations granted full certification that the NYS Department of Correctional Services Inmate Grievance Program is in substantial compliance with the standards set forth in Part 40 of Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations. Based on this certification, the court may order that prior to litigating claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, New York State inmates shall exhaust any remedies they have with respect to the claim through the Inmate Grievance Program. For the pwpose of this order, the disposition of the Central Office Review Committee (CORC) constitutes sufficient proof of exhaustion. In 1996, the federal government passed the Prisoner's Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) which enacted the same requirement for all inmates. On May 29, 2001, the United States Supreme Court decision in Booth v. Churner required that prisoners exhaust their administrative remedies before bringing damage lawsuits in federal court even if the administrative remedy does not provide damages. Subsequently, on February 26, 2002, the United States Supreme Court decision in Porter v. Nuss/e held that the exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong. These decisions, along with the PLRA have had an impact on the number of grievances being appealed to CORC. The impact is addressed in Part IV of this report. After an extensive review, the revision of Directive #4040 was issued on July 12, 2006. This revision included changes such as increases in the time frames at all levels, including the, filing of the grievance by the inmate. In addition, the processing of grievances after transfer was revised to allow the inmate to determine if he/she wished to appeal the decision. Also, a new section of the directive was established to describe procedures already in place for the processing I of Strip Search/Strip Frisk grievances. The purpose of these revisions was to ensure that the IGP remains an orderly, fair, simple and expeditious method of resolving grievances and, at the same time, remains in compliance with the ·standards set forth in Part 40 of Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations and the Federal Certification. II. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF IGP WORKLOAD The number of grievances filed in 2006 was 44,484, a decrease from the 45,345 filed in 2005. This is a decrease of 861 grievances as compared to the increase of758 grievances realized last year. However, the trend in the last seven years is one of fluctuating from an increase to a decrease each year and vice-versa with a high in 1999 of 45,797 grievances and a low of 41)81in2000. The non-calendared inmate contacts decreased steadily from 37,999 in 1999 to the 25,625 in 2005. In 2006, however, non-calendared contacts increased 3,911 to 29,536. The trend by inmates to file a grievance so that the administrative remedies can be exhausted has continued. Thus, the inmates who do file grievances are tending to exhaust the administrative remedy with an appeal to CORC. This 2006 total of 44,484 represents a decrease of 1.9%, while the inmate population decreased by .07% from the 63,360 average in 2005 to an average of 63,316 in 2006 (refer to graphs #1 and #2). In 2006, there were 702.5 grievance submissions per one thousand inmates, which is 1.8% less than the 715. 7 grievance submissions per one thousand inmates in 2005. During 2006, IGP field staff recorded approximately 29,536 non-calendared inmate contacts which clarified issues and/or enabled inmates to resolve problems without the submission of calendared grievances. Non-calendared contacts in 2006 reflect an increase of 3,911 from the 25,625 non-calendared contacts logged in 2005. In 2006, there were 4, 796 grievances ( l 0. 78% of the total filed) informally resolved by the Inmate Grievance Resolution Committee (IGRC). The number of informal resolutions realized by the IGRC in 2006 is less than the 5,324 grievances (11.74% of the total filed) in 2005. This is a decrease of 528 informal resolutions, or a 9.9% decrease (refer to graphs #3 and #4). There were 31,409 Inmate Grievance Resolution C_ommittee (IGRC) hearings (70.61 % of total filed) held statewide in 2006, a decrease from the 31,426 hearings (69.30% of total filed) in 2005. This reflects a decrease of 17 IGRC hearings. This decrease is consistent with the decrease in total grievances filed statewide (refer to graphs #5 and #6). In 2006, there were 2,646 grievances closed and dismissed by the IGRC in accordance with Directive #4040, Section V. A. 5. This represents 5.9% of all grievances filed. For comparison, in 2005 a total of 2, 796 grievances, or 6.2% of all grievances filed, were closed and dismissed by the IGRC. A total of25,189 grievances were processed at the Superintendent's level in 2006. This reflects a decrease of 112 grievances, or a 0.4% decrease, from the 25,301 grievances addressed by the Superintendent in 2005. The 2006 figures indicate 56.62% of all grievances filed were processed at the Superintendent's level (refer to graphs #7 and #8). 2 l@~~I> •1 •.•• ••••.••••.•••• ••••• •••• ••••• ·~-~; ••••. ..•••.• L~ R;~ ••.• _•-~~. ~~ ~~·. ~. ~~~· . ~~· ~~~· . ~·~:~~·I )4~~PPQ[ j ... ., "Rft idil!liCWI QiwQiii I 2 cs I \; LiWlllW!JU j4P~P.P.Qj j1 'l7 "'"~ .... u .. · ~~~~~PPH j~P~PPPH :25~000~~.............. ~~p~ppp~~ -·15··-·······ooo·· :: .. :~ .... : . :~ :~o-- :o··o· ·o· · :~ : :~ .. ~.: ... ::: :::5··:0··0··0··:~ : : : .. ~.:: ... : : : : : ~ ~~~:~Jb ·-·· ·-- ··· ·····- -· ...··· .··....··· .........····-···· .· . ... _, .1 . ..... .. ......... ~gs: .....'9~: •99·. ..··.....····99···· . ... .··.·00 . ~Q~ 02· ~03: ···........ .··. ···... ·····....... ........ ..·· ..·· .· ··· · ···· ... .. .... ···.. ....·· ·.·......· ........... .. '.#f . ................. ················ ·· ·········· · · ............ · ············ · ...... ······································· . ·································..................... ·························· ··············· ···················· ·· : co .....,p : -·~:: :c:;: c: o.::c:::o:::o:::e: ::e:::a: :a: o. :::: :o: :o: o::o:::o:: :o:::o:::o:::o: :o: ::: : :::: :o: o: 0::0::0:::0:::0:::0:::0: :o: :::: :::: :""': :"'!': :··~::: ..~ :::· ..,::: · -, ::: ·~:: .. -.:::··~: :" ~: :: : : :::: ·O.· C.· 0. .. 0, .. 0 .. ·0.. ·0.. ·0···0· C.· .. .... .. :o: :a;: G:>.'.'.t.-.:'.'.co'.::in ::: ~:::~:::N: ~; :::: ::: : :~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : :::::::::::::::: : ::: :::: ......... · ·........... ... ·saiew·ur ... .jo· .. 1· ·aqwn·N. ............ .... ·.. ·· ............ ... ::::: :::: : ::: .......... : .. ... : ......... :::.:::: ::::: :: :: ::: : ..... ············· ··············· ········· ·· ······ .. .' .......... ....... · ·..···. ...·· ··.. ..············. .. ... .. ....···· ·· ··········· ··········· · · · ···.. ...... g :: : .. ::N ...... :C) : :co. .. o .. -·· :: :::: : :::1::: ::::::::::: :::: ::: ::::: :: : :::: : ::: : 0::0::0:0:0::0::0:0:0: o::o :::: g:g:g:g : g::g~~g:g:g g~::~: ~: :: :: : ..... : .. ...; : . ..: : ..-.: .... : .. ft: . ...:: ..-.: .. - ..... : : : : ; : : : C)::O)::CO:~ : C0.:11)::-.:(W):N: 'I!"!'::: : : :: :: ~::: : :::: ::::: :::::::::::::::::: : ::: : ::::::::::::: :: . .. .. ... ... ·•• •.••• .5.740/45.57%15.75% • • I d '.1:5% .. a12.67%12.73Yca.·'1 A70/..., ... __.. ,_ - - u_44 '7AOL ·········· ··. .........········ ·· · ······· .:1· .: 0··%~ . .. ····· ······-··· .. ...... ·a:13·· - ~··· · · ~36~000~ :: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :3Q: OQQ'.4-- •v,•v=r ..... ... ... ..............··········'· ···· ·········· ···· :2. 5:Q: oo: .....:..... .,.,..... - 4-1:-----" :.::. ~:.:.::.: j~Q~~QQj ~1s:ooo: ................... '·' ....
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 142819NCJRS.Pdf
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions statee; in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has been granted by New York State Department of Correctional Services to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permission of the copyright owner. ", ~' • '11 .. Thom.as A. CoughUn III' .' Coml'niSsiqner ..\1', THE HUB SYSTEM: PROFILE OF INMATE POPULATION UNDERCUSTODY ON JANUARY 1, 1992 The New York State Department of Correctional Services is reorganizing the delivery of program services to the inmate population. One of the important components of this plan is grouping the correctional facilities by geographical proximity into administrative regions. This report presents a prorIle of the inmate population within each region. DIVISION OF PROGRAM PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION 1992 Prepared by: William R. Chapman Robert L. Fimer -i- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The New York State Department of Correctional Servics is reorganizing the delivery of program services to the inmate population. One of the important components of this plan is grouping the correctional facilities by geographical proximity into administrative regions. This report presents a profile of the inmate popUlation within each region. This executive summary briefly describes the characteristics of the total undercustody population and then presents the range of values found across the ten administrative clusters 011 a selected set of variables.
    [Show full text]
  • Hub System: Profile of Inmate Population Undercustody As of Jan
    State of New York Department of Correctional Services Building Number 2 Harriman Office Campus Albany, New York 12226 HUB SYSTEM: Profile of Inmate Population Under Custody on January 1, 2007 Eliot Spitzer Brian S. Fischer Governor Commissioner - i – THE HUB SYSTEM: PROFILE OF INMATE POPULATION UNDER CUSTODY ON JANUARY 1, 2007 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 1992, the New York State Department of Correctional Services reorganized the delivery of program services to the inmate population. One of the components of this plan is grouping the correctional facilities by geographical proximity into administrative regions. This report presents a profile of the inmate population within each region. This executive summary briefly describes the characteristics of the total under custody population and then lists the range of values found across the nine administrative Hubs on a selected set of variables. Total Characteristics Category Under Range Across Hubs Custody Low High Gender Female 4.5% 0.0% 21.9% Age Average Age 36.5 32.1 39.6 White 20.5% 12.7% 27.7% Race/Ethnic Status African-American 51.1% 48.1% 55.3% Hispanic 26.3% 21.9% 33.2% Region From New York City 53.5% 38.6% 76.5% Birthplace Foreign Born 10.8% 7.8% 16.6% Marital Status Never Married 65.4% 57.4% 75.0% Living Children One or more living children 59.2% 47.8% 62.7% Catholic 26.7% 20.6% 31.5% Religious Affiliation Protestant 30.1% 26.3% 33.8% Islam 13.2% 11.0% 17.4% Veteran Status Veteran 5.4% 2.2% 7.9% Average Minimum Minimum Sentence 106.1 52.6 155.9 Sentence in months Crime Violent Felony 57.4%
    [Show full text]
  • Family Survival Guide Information, Resources and Personal Stories for Families with Incarcerated Loved Ones
    FREE! Families Rally for Emancipation and Empowerment Family Survival Guide Information, Resources and Personal Stories for Families with Incarcerated Loved Ones Written by families for families http://www.freefamilies.us/ Tel: 718-300-9576 [email protected] Please take a moment to write us and let us know if you found the guide to be useful: Families Rally for Emancipation and Empowerment PO Box 90 Syracuse, NY 13201 ©FREE! Families Rally for Emancipation and Empowerment This publication was made by and for family members of people who are incarcerated. Your generous donations help to keep our work and our organization thriving. Thank you for your continued support. About the Art The art in this guide was created by incarcerated artists and provided to us for use by The Prisons Foundation. To learn more about this organization and the artists who created these pieces, visit: www.prisonsfoundation.org. Disclaimer The information contained in this publication is for general information purposes only. The information is collected and distributed by FREE!, and while we made our best efforts to assure the accuracy and reliability of the information contained herein, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suit- ability or availability with respect to the publication or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained herein for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk. In no event will FREE! be liable for any loss or damage including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage, or any loss or damage whatsoever arising out of, or in connection with, the use of this publication in print or on online.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Correctional Services
    DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES MISSION The Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) is responsible for the secure confinement of convicted felons and the preparation of these individuals for successful reintegration into the community upon release. ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING The Department, headed by a Commissioner, will have approximately 31,600 employees to operate 71 facilities. Each correctional facility is headed by a Superintendent and executive staff to oversee the daily operation of the nation’s fourth largest state prison system. FISCAL BACKGROUND AND BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS The budget recommendations for the Department of Correctional Services continue to reflect a reduced demand for prison space after two decades of capacity expansion. This reversal of the historical trend is the result of several factors, including a decline in the statewide number of felony arrests and the success of initiatives (such as Shock Incarceration, the Willard Drug Treatment Campus and the Merit Time Program) designed to reduce the number of non-violent offenders in prison. As a result, the Department will phase out additional beds currently in use in the prison system. It is important to note that the reduction in demand for prison space is for medium-security and minimum-security housing. Over the past six years, penalties for violent crime have increased significantly in New York State. Jenna’s Law, enacted in August 1998, together with Truth-in-Sentencing legislation enacted in 1995, ensure that violent offenders will serve 85 percent of their sentence in prison. The reduction in local assistance funding reflects the ability of the Agency to move State-ready prisoners from local jails to State prison in a timely manner due to the availability of State prison capacity.
    [Show full text]
  • Mental Health
    Mental Health in the House of Corrections The Correctional Association of New York mental health IN THE HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS A Study of Mental Health Care in New York State Prisons by the Correctional Association of New York June 2004 Mental Health in the House of Corrections The Correctional Association of New York The Correctional Association of New York “Because the dangers of abuse inherent in the penitentiary are always present, the work of the Correctional Association—an organization of knowledgeable experts unaffected by political forces—is so important.” —Judge Morris E. Lasker, Former U.S. District Court Judge, Southern District of New York Founded in 1844, The Correctional Association of New York is a privately funded, nonprofit organization that conducts research, policy analysis and advocacy on pressing criminal justice issues. It is one of only two independent agencies in the country—and the only independent agency in New York—with legislative authority to visit prisons, report on conditions and make recommendations to the Legislature on behalf of prisoners, correctional staff and the society at large. Copyright © 2004, The Correctional Association of New York All Rights Reserved The Correctional Association of New York 135 East 15th Street New York, NY 10003 www.correctionalassociation.org (212) 254-5700/Phone (212) 473-2807/Fax ii Mental Health in the House of Corrections The Correctional Association of New York ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Mental Health in the House of Corrections: A Study of Mental Health Care in New York State Prisons was co-authored by Jennifer R. Wynn, Director of the Prison Visiting Project, Alisa Szatrowski, Associate of the Prison Visiting Project, and Gregory Warner, former Associate of the Prison Visiting Project.
    [Show full text]
  • Lenc on Hall Jr., 'A Prison in the Woods: Environment and Incarceration in New York's North Country'
    H-Environment Lenc on Hall Jr., 'A Prison in the Woods: Environment and Incarceration in New York's North Country' Review published on Monday, August 16, 2021 Clarence Jefferson Hall Jr. A Prison in the Woods: Environment and Incarceration in New York's North Country. Environmental History of the Northeast Series. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2020. Illustrations. 288 pp. $29.95 (paper),ISBN 978-1-62534-536-3; $90.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-1-62534-535-6. Reviewed by Xander Lenc (University of California, Berkeley)Published on H-Environment (August, 2021) Commissioned by Daniella McCahey (Texas Tech University) Printable Version: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=56163 Are prisons and jails ecological institutions? Do they have distinct environmental footprints? Do they represent a failure to consider the environment, or are they predicated on environmental thinking? While “green” criminologists and their critics have long debated the use of the criminal justice system to tackle environmental problems ascriminal problems, there has more recently been a multidisciplinary push to investigate the ecological dimensions of incarceration itself, especially in the United States.[1] This body of work has generally been critical of prisons and invested in the core tenets of environmental justice: questioning the logic of “green” prison design and rehabilitation programs, probing the promise and limitations of environmental law’s capacity to monitor the ecological impact of prisons, probing the conceptual and social relationships
    [Show full text]
  • DIRECTORY of STATE PRISON LIBRARIANS 1991 PREPARED by MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL EDUCATION LIBRARIES BALTIMORE, MARYLAND If You Have
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. '.~< \ DIRECTORY OF STATE PRISON LIBRARIANS 1991 • PREPARED BY MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL EDUCATION LIBRARIES BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 133209 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in tilis document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has been granted by Marvland Correctional Education Libraries to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of the copyright owner. If"you have suggestions for improving the Directory of state Prison Libraries, or if you find errors, omissions or would like a copy of the Directory, please notify: " Ms. Brenda Vogel, Coordinator Correctional Education Libraries Maryland State Department of Education 200 W. Baltimore Street/7th Floor Baltimore, MD 21201-2595 (301) 333-2241 (For a copy of the Directory, please include a stamped, self-addressed 13 x 10 envelope with $ .65 in postage - Library Rate.) • • .. • FOREWORD The Directory of State Prison Librarians has been developed for the purpose of improving communication between the often isolated librarians working in • state correctional libraries and to serve as a resource and networking aid. It includes the names, addresses, telephone numbers and employing agencies of librarians working in adult and juvenile correctional libraries. This Directory began as a project of the ASCLA Library Service to Prisoners Forum of the American Library Assoc,iation.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Correctional Services
    DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES MISSION The Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) is responsible for the secure confinement of convicted felons and the preparation of these individuals for successful reintegration into the community upon release. ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING The Department, headed by a Commissioner, will have approximately 30,900 employees to operate 70 facilities. Each correctional facility is headed by a Superintendent and executive staff to oversee the daily operation of the nation’s fourth largest state prison system. FISCAL BACKGROUND AND BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS The budget recommendations for the Department of Correctional Services continue to reflect a reduced demand for prison space. This trend is the result of several factors, including tougher criminal justice reforms that have been made since 1995 and have led to a decline in the statewide number of felony arrests and the success of initiatives (such as Shock Incarceration, the Willard Drug Treatment Campus and the Merit Time Program) designed to reduce the number of non-violent offenders in prison by providing rehabilitation opportunities. It is important to note that the reduction in demand for prison space is for medium-security and minimum-security housing. Over the past nine years, penalties for violent crime have increased significantly in New York State. Jenna’s Law, enacted in August 1998, together with the Truth-in-Sentencing legislation enacted in 1995, ensure that violent offenders will serve at least 85 percent of their sentence in prison. The Department will continue to reconfigure prison capacity to reflect the changing inmate population. Funding of approximately $2.3 billion is provided to support operational needs.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 26: Infectious Diseases: AIDS, Hepatitis, Tuberculosis, and MRSA
    CHAPTER 26 INFECTIOUS DISEASES: AIDS, HEPATITIS, TUBERCULOSIS, AND MRSA IN PRISONS* A. Introduction This Chapter explains your legal rights with respect to infectious diseases in prison. This Chapter has information both for incarcerated people who already have an infectious disease (like HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, or Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)), and for incarcerated people who want to avoid getting an infectious disease. Part B gives you some basic facts about infectious diseases. Section (1)(a) of Part B also describes how women may have different symptoms of HIV/AIDS than men. Part C explains the general standard used to determine whether a prison policy is constitutional. Part D is about medical testing for infectious diseases in prisons, including whether a prison can force you to get tested or have others tested. Part E discusses disease prevention and segregation issues. Part F discusses the role of confidentiality and what you can expect in terms of keeping your health status private in prison. Part G deals with treatment options and your legal rights to those options. Part H discusses issues relating to discrimination. Part I discusses sentencing issues. Part J discusses planning for your release if you have an infectious disease. Finally, Appendix A lists resources for further information, counseling, and support for you and your family. You should also read other chapters of the JLM to understand your legal rights, especially Chapter 16, “Using 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to Obtain Relief From Violations of Federal Law,” Chapter 36, “Special Considerations for Sex Offenders,” Chapter 28, “Rights of Prisoners with Disabilities,” Chapter 23, “Your Right to Adequate Medical Care,” and Chapter 35, “Getting Out Early: Conditional & Early Release.” There are more court cases about HIV/AIDS than about the other diseases discussed in this Chapter.
    [Show full text]
  • Adirondack Chronology
    An Adirondack Chronology by The Adirondack Research Library of the Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks Chronology Management Team Gary Chilson Professor of Environmental Studies Editor, The Adirondack Journal of Environmental Studies Paul Smith’s College of Arts and Sciences PO Box 265 Paul Smiths, NY 12970-0265 [email protected] Carl George Professor of Biology, Emeritus Department of Biology Union College Schenectady, NY 12308 [email protected] Richard Tucker Adirondack Research Library 897 St. David’s Lane Niskayuna, NY 12309 [email protected] Last revised and enlarged – 20 January (No. 43) www.protectadks.org Adirondack Research Library The Adirondack Chronology is a useful resource for researchers and all others interested in the Adirondacks. It is made available by the Adirondack Research Library (ARL) of the Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks. It is hoped that it may serve as a 'starter set' of basic information leading to more in-depth research. Can the ARL further serve your research needs? To find out, visit our web page, or even better, visit the ARL at the Center for the Forest Preserve, 897 St. David's Lane, Niskayuna, N.Y., 12309. The ARL houses one of the finest collections available of books and periodicals, manuscripts, maps, photographs, and private papers dealing with the Adirondacks. Its volunteers will gladly assist you in finding answers to your questions and locating materials and contacts for your research projects. Introduction Is a chronology of the Adirondacks really possible?
    [Show full text]
  • \,. Nedrs ION 1~ 1992
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES * THE STATE OFFICE BUILDING CAMPUS ALBANY, N.Y. 12226 THOMAS A. COUGHLIN III COMMISSIONER CHESTER H. CLARK ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DIVISION OF PROGRAM PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION FACILITY ESCAPE INCIDENTS 1986 - 1990 This report provides descriptive info;-mation on incidents of escape from the correctional facilities of the New York State Department of Correctional Services between 1986 and 1990. The report also presents information on demographic characteristics and legal history characteristics of escapees. When appropriate, escapees are compared with the general under custody population. The analysis uses a series of variables including facility security level, age, commitment offense, minimum sentence, maximum sentence, time served, prior adult criminal 'history, and duration of escape. The rel,lort is preceded by a brief summary of the main findings. t ".~'~#~"~"~'''''''''"''''''''l".' • ,\,. NeDRS II' '. ;,i 1991 ION 1~ 1992 AC.UISIT10NS CHESTER H. CLARK Assistant Commissioner G. RONALD COURINGTON Director of MIS/Research PAUL KOROTKIN Assistant Director MIS/Research HENR Y C. DONNELLY Director, Program Planning . Research and Evaluation 137148 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material in mi­ croficheNew 01}1yyork has been State 9.ranted by Department of CorrectlonaI SerVlces to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS).
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT of NEW YORK FRED POWELL, Plaintiff, V. No. 08-CV-371 (NAM/DRH) BRIAN FISCHER
    Case 9:08-cv-00371-NAM-DRH Document 43 Filed 02/17/10 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FRED POWELL, Plaintiff, v. No. 08-CV-371 (NAM/DRH) BRIAN FISCHER, Commissioner, New York State Department of Correctional Services; JEFFREY TEDFORD, Superintendent, Camp Gabriels Correctional Facility; DR. ROY PARKER, P.A., Camp Gabriels Correctional Facility; and DR. BERGAMINI, Physician, Adirondack Correctional Facility, Defendants. APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: FRED POWELL Plaintiff Pro Se 07-A-4499 Franklin Correctional Facility Post Office Box 10 Malone, New York 12953 HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO JAMES SEAMAN, ESQ. Attorney General for the Assistant Attorney General State of New York Attorney for Defendants The Capitol Albany, New York 12224-0341 DAVID R. HOMER U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE REPORT-RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER1 Plaintiff pro se Fred Powell (“Powell”), an inmate in the custody of the New York State 1This matter was referred to the undersigned for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and N.D.N.Y.L.R. 72.3(c). Case 9:08-cv-00371-NAM-DRH Document 43 Filed 02/17/10 Page 2 of 18 Department of Correctional Services (“DOCS”), brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendants, DOCS Commissioner and three DOCS employees, violated his constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment. Compl. (Dkt. No. 1). Presently pending is defendants’ motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Dkt. No. 40. Powell has not responded to the motion. For the following reasons, it is recommended that defendants’ motion be granted.
    [Show full text]